Camelia R Singletary1, Glenn Weaver2, Russell L Carson3, Michael W Beets4, Russell R Pate5, Ruth P Saunders6, Alexandra G Peluso7, Justin B Moore8. 1. Department of Family & Community Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA. Electronic address: crsingle@wakehealth.edu. 2. Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA. Electronic address: weaverrg@mailbox.sc.edu. 3. School of Sport and Exercise Science, College of Natural and Health Sciences, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, 80639, USA; PlayCore, 544 Chestnut St., Chattanooga, TN, 37402, USA. Electronic address: russell.carson@unco.edu. 4. Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA. Electronic address: beets@mailbox.sc.edu. 5. Department of Exercise Science, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA. Electronic address: rpate@mailbox.sc.edu. 6. Department of Health Promotion, Education, & Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA. Electronic address: rsaunder@mailbox.sc.edu. 7. Department of Kinesiology and Health Education, College of Education, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 78712, USA. Electronic address: apeluso@utexas.edu. 8. Department of Family & Community Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA; Department of Epidemiology & Prevention, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA; Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA. Electronic address: jusmoore@wakehealth.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs (CSPAPs) are widely supported to increase physical activity (PA) in schools, but little has been reported to inform a comprehensive evaluation effort. The purpose of this report is to describe a comprehensive evaluation and monitoring strategy for CSPAP implementation. METHODS: The System for Observing Staff Promotion of Activity and Nutrition (SOSPAN), System for Observing Student Movement in Academic Routines and Transitions (SOSMART), and System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity (SOPLAY) were employed to record student and staff behaviors (2642 total scans). To assess policies, practices, and environments, a CSPAP Policies and Practices questionnaire was used, which included components of the School Health Index, the School PA Policy Assessment, the School Environment and Policies Survey, and the School Health Policies and Practices Study. Youth PA (minutes/day) was assessed using accelerometers. RESULTS: Working with school sites to ascertain the number of opportunities that are provided for PA and the amount of PA students engage in is challenging but feasible. The use of systematic observation, accelerometers, and questionnaires can provide a comprehensive representation of policies, practices, and behaviors to aid in establishing targeted PA action items. CONCLUSIONS: Developing an evaluation framework that was rigorous enough to assess the physical, social, and policy environment of a school in order to answer the overarching research questions of the study but flexible enough to be feasibly streamlined for utilization by a school implementation team proved to be challenging but possible.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive School Physical Activity Programs (CSPAPs) are widely supported to increase physical activity (PA) in schools, but little has been reported to inform a comprehensive evaluation effort. The purpose of this report is to describe a comprehensive evaluation and monitoring strategy for CSPAP implementation. METHODS: The System for Observing Staff Promotion of Activity and Nutrition (SOSPAN), System for Observing Student Movement in Academic Routines and Transitions (SOSMART), and System for Observing Play and Leisure Activity (SOPLAY) were employed to record student and staff behaviors (2642 total scans). To assess policies, practices, and environments, a CSPAP Policies and Practices questionnaire was used, which included components of the School Health Index, the School PA Policy Assessment, the School Environment and Policies Survey, and the School Health Policies and Practices Study. Youth PA (minutes/day) was assessed using accelerometers. RESULTS: Working with school sites to ascertain the number of opportunities that are provided for PA and the amount of PA students engage in is challenging but feasible. The use of systematic observation, accelerometers, and questionnaires can provide a comprehensive representation of policies, practices, and behaviors to aid in establishing targeted PA action items. CONCLUSIONS: Developing an evaluation framework that was rigorous enough to assess the physical, social, and policy environment of a school in order to answer the overarching research questions of the study but flexible enough to be feasibly streamlined for utilization by a school implementation team proved to be challenging but possible.
Authors: Rebecca E Lee; Katie M Booth; Jacqueline Y Reese-Smith; Gail Regan; Hugh H Howard Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2005-09-14 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Justin B Moore; Russell L Carson; Collin A Webster; Camelia R Singletary; Darla M Castelli; Russell R Pate; Michael W Beets; Aaron Beighle Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2018-01-05
Authors: Blake Densley; Hannah G Calvert; Peter Boedeker; Lindsey Turner Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Justin B Moore; R Glenn Weaver; Beverly J Levine; Camelia R Singletary; Russell L Carson; Michael W Beets; Darla M Castelli; Aaron Beighle; Russell R Pate Journal: Health Behav Policy Rev Date: 2021-03